I don't usually post about bankruptcy or criminal law issues, but the facts from a recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which involved both bankruptcy and criminal law issues, were too intriguing to ignore.

Condominium owners’ associations are unique under Florida law—particularly when it comes to the collection of delinquent assessments and liability. The already complicated bankruptcy process thus becomes even more complex when a condominium owner with unpaid assessments is involved. Assessments that arose prior to the filing of the bankruptcy petition are subject to discharge in the bankruptcy. But, the question then arises as to whether or not the unit owner is liable for post-petition assessments.

The Supreme Court of the United States has decided it will review the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Johnson v. Midland Funding LLC.

A link to the docket is available here: Link to Docket.

A recent decision by an appeals court of the State of New York highlights the deceptive complexity of bringing non-contractual claims by or on behalf of noteholders under the seemingly boilerplate remedies provisions in trust indentures. At issue was the standard indenture language that defines the authority of a trustee to bring claims under the indenture, and in particular whether the trustee has the power to bring non-contractual claims under its own volition (not directed by a majority in principal amount of bondholders) against persons not party to the indenture.

More and more frequently the following question arises: “What do we do about personal, sensitive, and business information owned by or residing with a financially troubled company?” Information is an intangible asset and often has significant value. Information increasingly resides with a party other than the owner and may need to be transferred in unexpected ways. Unfortunately, the thinking about this question often arises after financial distress is readily apparent, such as after a bankruptcy filing.

In Reichhold Holdings US, Inc., on August 24, 2016, the Delaware Bankruptcy Court ruled that a vendor's reclamation trumped a lender's lien on inventory, arising from a post-petition DIP loan (that was used to repay the prepetition loan).

Generally, reclamation claims are subject to existing liens on inventory. However, where a prior loan is paid, the underlying liens are extinguished, and the existing reclamation claim becomes the first "lien" on the inventory. Liens arising from a subsequent DIP loan are junior to the pre-existing reclamation claim.

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently announced proposed amendments to its local rules. The proposed amendments will not take effect until December 1, 2016, but we could not wait to take a peek at the future of practice in the Southern District.

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case of Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp. during the new term that began last week. The questions it presents are relatively simple. First, can a bankruptcy court, in dismissing a case under the U.S.

Last week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Midland Funding v. Johnson and resolve the split in the circuits over whether the filing of a time barred proof of claim violates the FDCPA and whether the Bankruptcy Code preempts the FDCPA regarding proofs of claim.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently held that a secured party’s foreclosure did not discharge an otherwise valid security interest in the proceeds of the collateral, nor did it preclude the creditor from pursuing its rights to such proceeds.